..if the TP - or any party - wants to introduce a bill, there is a procedure for that. Its called the USCON.

You submit your bill to the house, if it passes it goes to the Senate. If it passes the Senate the POTUS signs it into law and that's that.

The TP wanted CC$B. Would it have passed both houses? Not a chance.

They LOVE the USCON SO much they want to change it with their stupid infantile BBA.

There was no crisis until the GOP/TP created one.

How despicable is that?

Q

Qtec

08-04-2011, 06:11 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, Tea Partiers. That's EXACTLY What You Are: TERRORISTS! Now Live with how America Perceives You.
"Be careful what you pretend to be because you are what you pretend to be."
Kurt Vonnegut

The Tea Partiers are shocked, shocked, SHOCKED! that they've been characterized as the slash and burn terrorists that they most certainly are. When you act like thugs, people will call you thugs, and the American people see the Tea Party as nothing more than know-nothing thugs who terrorized the country with the threat of financial disaster unless they got their way. This is the behavior of jihadists, not politicians.

And when the Randian Tea Partiers are faced with the fact that Americans and the world see them as destructive, incompetent fools--Hello Michele Bachmann!--they cry FOUL! It's not FAIR!

Well it is a fair and accurate description of how they've behaved and what their ideology is.

Live with it, Tea Baggers. You so richly deserve all the disgust and loathing America is feeling right now for what you put it through. </div></div>

So, your idea of representative democracy is that when your side loses the last election, the winners should be subservient to the minority party ... BUT when your side wins they should rule without care over the minority party?

What a lover of totalitarian fascism you truly are.

No wonder we have to come bail the Euros out every generation or so.

Soflasnapper

08-04-2011, 08:11 AM

Sure, the House is simply exercising their Constitutional right of veto, as the majority controlling party of one house of the Congress. Which veto power is found, well surely, it must be in Article I? And that power is enumerated, in which section again?

Wait, there is NO such power granted to the Congress itself as a whole, let alone to one half of that branch of government. The fringe position held by only 25% to 33% of REPUBLICANS (that no revenues should be raised as part of the debt ceiling increase/deficit reduction plan, and only spending cuts) somehow had to be the hold-out position of the House because... the Republicans are now the majority party in control of the government?

Well, no they're not, that's not the case. They failed to win the WH or the Senate, where they are still the minority party.

Let's face it-- your side believes what you said-- when they've got control, even the filibuster on a few things (like life appointments to the federal bench) is the most horrible thing ever, and creates a crisis. When they are the minority, it's fine to filibuster all things, and horrible to suggest that might be going too far.

Now that they have the House majority, they own the entire government, or at least, have the right to block everything, including something supported by 66% to 75% of their own party members, to satisfy a minority of their own caucus in the House?

Under normal order, the House always has to give up its more extreme positions, in order to get something that can pass the Senate. That's a large part of what Speaker Pelosi had to do with her caucus-- explain why they could not get their entire way on bills, and in fact, why many things they passed (some 250 bills passed by the House) would not even come up for a vote in the Senate. That was true even though the Dems held the majority in the Senate, and controlled the WH. The House always tends to get hosed in favor of what is doable in the Senate in our system.

That's how it was the previous 2 years of Democratic majority control of both Houses of Congress. Now, it's totally different for the GOP House, for reasons no one can articulate. THEY WON THE ELECTION! Yes, as did the Dems in '08. The House didn't always get its way when that was true, THEN. Why would that be the case now?

LWW

08-04-2011, 08:42 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sure, the House is simply exercising their Constitutional right of veto, as the majority controlling party of one house of the Congress. Which veto power is found, well surely, it must be in Article I? And that power is enumerated, in which section again?

Wait, there is NO such power granted to the Congress itself as a whole, let alone to one half of that branch of government.</div></div>

That is the lamest of all lame arguments you have ever presented.

One house of congress disagreeing with the other is not a veto.

Neither body must agree with the other. Ever.

Sev

08-04-2011, 10:02 AM

Thats a fact.
The founders deliberately set up the system the way it is to make it difficult to legislate anything.

The power of the purse was deliberately given to the house because its representatives most often have to answer to the voting public.

LWW

08-04-2011, 10:12 AM

And the left hates them for it to this day.

Soflasnapper

08-04-2011, 11:47 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sure, the House is simply exercising their Constitutional right of veto, as the majority controlling party of one house of the Congress. Which veto power is found, well surely, it must be in Article I? And that power is enumerated, in which section again?

Wait, there is NO such power granted to the Congress itself as a whole, let alone to one half of that branch of government.</div></div>

That is the lamest of all lame arguments you have ever presented.

One house of congress disagreeing with the other is not a veto.

Neither body must agree with the other. Ever. </div></div>

Yes, they always must (eventually) agree on some things, or the government would never ever get funded, as it must, through annual appropriations. The Senate MUST (eventually) agree to ratify executive branch appointments, or the executive branch, the cabinet, and the judiciary, will remain without officers.

While it is true that they do not necessarily need to agree on a PARTICULAR thing, when they do not so agree, they must go back to the legislative drawing board, and/or engage in negotiations.

Notably, Cantor walked out of negotiations, ending them, Boehner walked out of negotations, ending them, one of the GOP's Gang of Six walked out of the negotiations, McConnell refused to negotiate with Reid, and Boehner refused to return Obama's repeated phone calls for 2 days.

LWW

08-04-2011, 12:04 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While it is true that they do not necessarily need to agree on a PARTICULAR thing, when they do not so agree, they must go back to the legislative drawing board, and/or engage in negotiations.</div></div>

And that is what happened.

So your point actually was what?

What's that?

You never actually had a point?

But ... I already knew that.

Soflasnapper

08-04-2011, 12:26 PM

Boehner said he got 98% of what he sought. That isn't negotiating by the GOP, it is capitulation from the Dems in the face of no negotiating on the other side.

A capitulation based on a refusal to come off maximalist demands, holding the debt ceiling and the credit of the country as hostage.

Question, did they meet in the middle? Did Democrats get anything close to what they requested? A token couple of millions in revenue increases (even as Boehner had semi-agreed to $80 billion in them before he ended the negotiations)? Of course not.

It was a pure power play by the GOP, which worked because they signaled (more than signaled) a willingness for the country to default rather than do what the country required, so as to placate a tiny minority of their caucus (well, some 40 to 80 of them). Against the will of the majority of REPUBLICANS and TEA PARTY MEMBERS, let alone the majority of the country.

eg8r

08-04-2011, 02:35 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Boehner said he got 98% of what he sought. That isn't negotiating by the GOP, it is capitulation from the Dems in the face of no negotiating on the other side.
</div></div>Wait a sec...You have never believed anything out of Boehners mouth up until this point. Now when you are trying to prove a point you take his word at face value? No research this time to prove he is lying? Seems like you are picking and choosing what info you want to believe when you want to believe it.

Would you then agree that the dems only got 2% of what they wanted? Or, what percentage overlap do you think there was?

eg8r

LWW

08-04-2011, 04:16 PM

What you lack the clear mind to realize is that what Boehner wanted is what the democrooks wanted.

You buy so easily into the hype that you don't realize that the democrook/RINO alliance won.

The only thing the TPM achieved was keeping it to a 2 touchdown game instead of a blowout.

Grow up ... next time your side will fare far, far worse.

Qtec

08-05-2011, 04:02 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wait a sec...You have never believed anything out of Boehners mouth up until this point </div></div>

Are you agreeing that not a true word comes out of that smarmy mouth of his?

When the Republican Senate speaker says something should we consider it a lie?

Q

LWW

08-05-2011, 04:28 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wait a sec...You have never believed anything out of Boehners mouth up until this point </div></div>

Are you agreeing that not a true word comes out of that smarmy mouth of his?

When the Republican Senate speaker says something should we consider it a lie?

Q </div></div>

I think he's demonstrating that to the left ... "TRUTH" and "HONEST" are entirely malleable concepts.

If the regime says today someone is dishonest, the Obamatrons will believe it. If tomorrow the regime says the same person is dishonest, they will believe that ... forgetting that they had ever believed them to be honest until the advancement of the agenda requires them to retrieve the data.

IOW ... that is a textbook example of Orwellian doublethink.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Eric Arthur "George Orwell" Blair</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>... To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them</span>, to use logic against logic, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>to repudiate morality while laying claim to it</span>, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed</span>. ...

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary.</span> ...</div></div>

Gayle in MD

09-14-2011, 11:12 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">..if the TP - or any party - wants to introduce a bill, there is a procedure for that. Its called the USCON.

You submit your bill to the house, if it passes it goes to the Senate. If it passes the Senate the POTUS signs it into law and that's that.

The TP wanted CC$B. Would it have passed both houses? Not a chance.

They LOVE the USCON SO much they want to change it with their stupid infantile BBA.